IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


V 


m 


A 


<^j 


Z 

M 


/a 


■■<>■§! 


'S 
m 


1.0 


I.I 


■-  lilM 


25 

1^ 


1.8 


1.25 

1.4 

1.6 

-^ 6"     - 

► 

m 


(pi 


¥^'^ 


°m 


Photographic 

Sciences 

Corporation 


m 


c\ 


iV 


^\ 


^9) 


V 


6^ 


^9) 


r^^^ 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  14580 

(716)  872-4503 


<? 


<.'  V-^^-"^^ 


;•;  \^  «. 


^^ 


CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHM/ICMH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canadian  Institute  for  Historical  Microreproductions  /  Institut  Canadian  de  microreproductions  historiques 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notes/Notes  techniques  et  bibliographiques 


The  Institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  best 
original  copy  available  for  filming.  Features  of  this 
copy  which  may  be  bibliographically  unique, 
which  may  alter  any  of  the  images  in  the 
reproduction,  or  which  may  significantly  change 
the  usual  method  of  filming,  are  checked  below. 


L'Institut  a  microfilm^  le  meilleur  exemplaire 
qu'il  lui  a  6X6  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  details 
de  cet  exemplaire  qui  sont  peut-§tre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibliographique,  qui  peuvent  modifier 
une  image  reproduite,  ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une 
modification  dans  la  mdthode  normale  de  filmage 
sont  indiqu^s  ci-dessous. 


D 


Coloured  covers/ 
Couverture  de  couleur 


D 


Coloured  pages/ 
Pages  de  couleur 


D 
D 


Covers  damaged/ 
Couverture  endommagde 

Covers  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Couverture  restaur6e  et/ou  pellicul^e 


D 
D 


Pages  damaged/ 
Pages  endommag6es 

Pages  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Pages  restaurdes  et/ou  pelliculdes 


rr7    Cover  title  missing/ 

\X\    Le  titre  de  couverture  manque 

□    Coloured  maps/ 
Cartes  gdographiques  en  couleur 

□    Coloured  ink  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)/ 
Encre  de  couleur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  noire) 


D 
D 
D 


Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed/ 
Pages  d6color6es,  tachetdes  ou  piqu6es 

Pages  detached/ 
Pages  d^tachdes 

Showthrough/ 
Transparence 


D 


Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations/ 
Planches  et/ou  illustrations  en  couleur 


D 


Quality  of  print  varies/ 
Quality  in6gale  de  I'impression 


D 


Bound  with  other  material/ 
Reli6  avec  d'autres  documents 

Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion 
along  interior  margin/ 

La  reliure  serr^e  peut  causer  de  I'ombre  ou  do  la 
distortion  .e  long  de  la  marge  intdrieure 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  se  peut  que  certaines  pages  blanches  ajoutdes 
lors  d'une  restauration  apparaissent  dans  le  texte, 
mais,  lorsque  cela  6tait  possible,  ces  pages  n'ont 
pas  6t(§  film6es. 


D 
D 
D 


Includes  supplementary  material/ 
Comprend  du  materiel  supplementaire 

Only  edition  available/ 
Seule  Edition  disponible 

Pages  wholly  or  partially  ooscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc.,  have  been  refilmed  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image/ 
Les  pages  totalement  ou  partiellement 
obscurcies  par  un  feuillet  d'errata,  une  pelure, 
etc.,  ont  6t6  filmdes  d  nouveau  de  faqon  d 
obtenir  la  meilleure  image  possible. 


D 


Additional  comments:/ 
Commentairas  suppl6mentaires: 


This  Item  is  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  est  film6  au  taux  de  reduction  indiqud  ci-dessous. 

10X  14X  18X  22X 


12X 


16X 


20X 


1 


24X 


26X 


SOX 


28X 


n 


32X 


>laire 
>s  details 
iques  du 
nt  modifier 
xiger  une 
ie  filmage 


>d/ 
qu6es 


The  copy  filmed  here  has  been  reproduced  thanks 
to  the  generosity  of: 

Library  of  Congress 
Photoduplication  Service 

The  Images  appearing  here  are  the  best  quality 
possible  considering  the  condition  and  legibility 
of  the  original  copy  and  in  keeping  with  the 
filming  contract  specifications. 


Original  copies  in  printed  paper  covers  are  filmed 
beginning  with  the  front  cover  and  ending  on 
the  last  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, or  the  back  cover  when  appropriate.  All 
other  original  copies  are  filmed  beginning  on  the 
first  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, and  ending  on  the  last  page  with  a  printed 
or  Illustrated  impression. 


taire 


The  last  recorded  frame  on  each  microfiche 
shall  contain  the  symbol  ^^>  (meaning  "CON- 
TINUED"), or  the  symbol  V  (meaning  "END"), 
whichever  applies. 

Maps,  plates,  charts,  etc.,  may  be  filmed  at 
different  reduction  ratios.  Those  too  large  to  be 
entirely  Included  In  one  exposure  are  filmed 
beginning  In  the  upper  left  hand  corner,  left  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  frames  as 
required.  The  following  diagrams  Illustrate  the 
method: 


L'exemplaire  filmd  fut  reproduit  grdce  d  la 
g6n6rosit6  de: 

Library  of  Congress 
Photoduplication  Service 

Les  images  suivantes  ont  6x6  reproduites  avec  le 
plus  grand  soin,  compte  tenu  de  la  condition  et 
de  la  nettetd  de  l'exemplaire  iUm6.  et  en 
conformity  avec  les  conditions  du  contrat  de 
filmage. 

Les  exemplaires  originaux  dont  la  couverture  en 
papier  est  imprim^e  sont  filmds  en  commenpant 
par  le  premier  plat  et  en  terminant  soit  par  la 
dernidre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration,  soit  par  le  second 
plat,  selon  le  cas.  Tous  les  autres  exemplaires 
originaux  sont  film^s  en  commenpant  par  la 
premidre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration  et  en  terminant  par 
la  dernidre  page  qui  comporte  une  telle 
empreinte. 

Un  des  symboles  suivants  apparaitra  sur  la 
dernidre  image  de  cheque  microfiche,  selon  le 
cas:  le  symbole  ■— *►  signifie  "A  SUIVRE",  le 
symbole  V  signifie  "FIN". 

Les  cartes,  planches,  tableaux,  etc.,  peuvent  §tre 
fllmds  d  des  taux  de  reduction  diffdrents. 
Lorsque  le  document  est  trop  grand  pour  dtre 
reproduit  en  un  seul  clichd,  11  est  filmd  d  partir 
de  Tangle  supdrieur  gauche,  de  gauche  d  droite, 
et  de  haut  en  bas,  en  prenant  le  nombre 
d'Images  ndcessaire.  Les  diagrammes  suivants 
illustrent  la  mdthode. 


i  by  errata 
med  to 

Tient 

,  une  pelure, 

I  faqon  d 

e. 


1 

2 

3 

32X 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

M 


TO  TH 
ENT 
BY 

Mr.  Gi 
Calirorn 
April,  18 
Thomas 
gon  and 
nient,  fu 
of  Mr.  G 

l8t.  M 
it  wu  p 
argumei: 
of  the  F 
LL.D.,  e 
ing  passi 
iana  froi 

"The  1 
Miitiuii 
helongini 
mountair 
tkoitfall 
of  mouni 
ti  iy  6 
ttkrr.' « 

The  w 
raaa,  as  a 
words  of 
ford  as  h 
terms  of 
purchase 
ance  of  I 
er  he  is  c 
ford's  au 
tation  is 
Bradford 
passage  ' 
ana.  M 
wasgrea 


1 


The  fact 
ery  of  th 
of  the  te 
and  in  tli 
understo 
Bgreeme 
in  the  tn 
Mr.  Jerte 
Louisian 
to  the  c 
(Greenh( 
is  not  in 
part  of  th 
thus  repi 
not  say  t 
Sdly.  J 
of  autho 
the  govc 
Great  Br 
'taking  p 
Buthofizi 
ity— was 
legislatio 
domiaioi 


MR.  FALCONER'S  REPLY  TO  MR.  GREENHOW'S  ANSWER; 

A  " 


WITH 


MR.  GREENHOWS  REJOINDER. 


POSTSCRIPT 

TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION  OF  A  PAMPHLET, 
ENTITLED  "THE  OREGON  QUESTION,"  &C., 
BY  THOMAS  FALCONER,  ESQ. 

Mr.  Greenhow,  the  author  of  the  "Historj  of  Ortgon  and 
California,"  has  pubiisheil  a  pamjihlet,  dated  Washington, 
April,  1845,  entitled  'An  Answer  to  the  Stricture*  of  Mr. 
Thomas  Falconer,  of  Lincoln's  Inn,  on  the  History  of  Ore- 
gon and  California."  In  noticing  this  answer,  it  is  conve- 
nient, for  the  sake  of  brevity,  to  take  each  of  the  complaints 
of  Mr.  Greenhow  separately. 

1st.  Mr.  Falconer  preferring,  in  every  instance  in  which 
it  was  practicable,  to  use  American  authorities,  has,  in  his 
argument  on  the  Oregon  question,  cited  from  the  "History 
of  the  Federal  (iovernmeut,"  written  by  Alden  Bradford, 
LL.D.,  editor  of  the  .Massachusetts  State  Papers,  the  follow- 
ing  passage  respecting  the  extent  of  the  purchase  of  Louis- 
iana from  France  by  the  government  of  the  United  States: 

"The  purchase  included  all  lands  'on  Hit  east  aide  of  Ike 
Miuiitippi  rivet  (an  as  to  include  New  Orleans)  not  then 
tetonging  to  the  Uniird  Slatet,  at  Jar  as  the  peat  chain  nf 
mountains  which  divide  the  waters  running  into  the  Pacific  and 
those  falling  into  the  Jlllantic  ocean;  ant  from  the  said  chain 
of  mountains  to  the  Pacific  ocean,  between  the  territory  claim- 
ti  by  Chrat  Britain  on  the  one  siit,  and  by  Suain  on  the 
tthrr.' » 

The  words  in  italics  are  placed  between  inverted  com- 
mas, as  a  citation,  by  Dr.  Bradford  himself;  they  are  not  the 
words  of  Mr.  Falconer.  Mr.  Falconer,  adopting  Dr.  Brad- 
ford as  his  authority,  cites  the  passage  as  expressing  the 
terms  of  an  agreement,  to  which  the  treaty  of  1SU3,  forthe 
purchase  of  Louisiana,  gave  validity;  and  so  far  a  convey- 
ance of  Louisiana,  in  these  terms,  underthe  treaty.  Whetn- 
er  he  is  correct,  or  not,  depends  upon  the  value  of  Dr.  Brad- 
ford's authority.  Mr.  Greenhow  does  not  say  that  the  quo- 
tation is  incorrect,  nor  does  he  deny  the  statement  of  Dr. 
Bradford.  There  appears  to  be  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the 
passage  was  part  ol  the  ofHcial  terms  of  the  sale  of  Louisi 
ana.  Mr.  Greenhow  states,  however,  that  "his  surprise 
was  great,  on  finding  that  Mr.  Falconer  had  presented  this 
passage  as  a  stipulation  in  the  treaty  of  October,  IBO.I  ' 
The  fact  is,  that  Mr.  Falconer,  in  his  work  "on  the  Discov 
ery  of  the  Mississippi,"  Stc,  referred  to  the  passage  as  part 
of  the  terms  of  the  treaty;  but  in  his  first  edition,  (p.  10,) 
and  in  the  second  edition,  (p.  11,)  thinking  he  might  be  mis- 
understood, he  sneaks  of  it  as  part  of  the  terms  "of  the 
agreement"  for  the  sale  of  Louisiana.  The  terms  are  not 
in  the  treaty  itself— for  the  reason,  perhaps,  which  induced 
Mr.  Jelt'erson,  in  1807,  three  years  after  the  purchase  of 
Louisiana,  to  fear  that  any;  aiiuiiou  io  any  claim  extending 
to  the  coast  of  the  Pacific  would  be  oft'ensive  to  Spain, 
(Greenhow  on  the  Oregon,  p.  282.)  But  though  the  citation 
is  not  in  the  treaty  itself,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  is  not 
partoftheagreement  on  which  the  treaty  is  founded.  It  is 
thus  represented  by  Dr.  Bradford,  and  Mr.  Greenhow  doo« 
not  say  that  the  passage  is  in  any  respect  inaccurate. 

2dly.  Mr.  Falconer  has  shown,  that  prior  to  the  exercise 
of  authority  in  the  Orngon  territory,  under  the  orders  of 
the  government  of  the  United  States,  the  government  of 
Great  Britair.  had  "taken  possession"  of  it,  and  "that  the 
'taking  possession'  of  a  new  country  hy  persons  ofltcially 
authorized— and  no  private  person  could  assume  the  author- 
ity—was the  exercise  of  a  sovereign  power,  a  distinct  act  of 
legislation,  by  which  the  territory  became  annexed  to  the 
dominions  of  th«  Crows."   To  this  Mr.  Greenhow  replies, 


1 


"that  Mr.  Falconer  forgflt  or  concealed  the  fact,  that  Span- 
ish officers  had  landed  on  all  those  coasts,  and  on  each  occa- 
sion had  most  formally  taken  possession  in  the  name  of 
their  monarch,  and  had  made  a  settlement  by  the  special  or- 
ders of  their  government,  before  any  attempt  for  the  tame 
purpose  had  been  made  there  by  the  people  of  any  other 
nation.'''  But  Mr.  Falconer  has  not  acted  thus;  he  has 
shown  that  two  things  are  required  to  complete  a  title  to 
vacant  wastes— the  one,  the  ofiicial  assertion  of  sovereignty  i 
and  the  other,  occupation.  The  first,  alone,  is  o(  no  avail 
without  occupation.  But  it  is  well  known  that  the  Spaniards 
neverocciipied  the  country.  If  they  had  done  so,  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  could  have  made  no  claim  to  any 
part  of  it  in  1814.  The  country  was  open  to  any  government 
to  possess  and  occu,,y  it,  notwithstanding  any  mere  formal 
act  of  po8se.<sion  unaccompanied  by  occupation,  which  any 
government  might  previously  have  made.  Such  posses- 
sion of  Oregon,  accompanied  by  occupation,  was  first  made 
under  the  authority  of  the  British  government;  and  its  right 
to  do  this  was  recognised  in  the  convention  of  the  Escurial, 


in  17!)2.    [1790?] 

"No  authority,"  says  Mr.  Greenhow,  "on  the  part 


3dly. 


of  the  British  government,  was  alleged  by  the  claimants  of 
Nootka  Sound,  whose  cause  was  supported  by  the  British 
government  in  1700,  at  a  risk  of  a  war  with  Spain."  This 
statement  Mr.  Falconer  does  not  controvert.  The  Nootka 
dispute  might  not  have  arisen  if  the  Spanish  ofticers  had  not 
unjustlHably  seized  the  vessels  of  British  subjects.  But 
whateverdefect  in  a  title  to  settle  at  Nootka  might  have 
existed  through  Mears's  proceedings,  the  Britisli  govern- 
ment had  a  perfect  rii»ht  to  settle  the  Oregon  territory,  as 
a  waste  and  abandoned  territory;  to  instruct  Vancouver  to 
take  possession  of  it;  and  to  authorize  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  to  form  establishments  in  it,  independently  of  the 
treaty  of  the  F.scurial,  which  also  sanctions  the  establish- 
ment of  British  settlements  in  the  country. 
4thly.  Mr.  Greenhow  complains  that  a  passage  in  his 


•  The  following  passages  are  only  to  be  reconciled  by 
proving  that  Martinez  made  a  permanent  settlement  in  the 
Oregon  Territory.  This  Mr.  Greenhow  would  be  unable 
to  prove.  The  Spaniards  did  not  visit  the  country  after  the 
Nootka  aft'air  was  settled: 

"It   should   be    observed,  "— Forgetting  or  conceal- 

with  regard  to  the  right  of  ing  the  facts,  that  Spanish 

the  S'panish  government  thus  officers  had  landed    on    all 

to  take  possession  of  Noot-  those  coasts,  and,  on   each 

ka,  that,  before  the  6th  of  occasion,  had  most  formally 

May,  1739,  when    Martinez  taken  possession  in  the  name 


entered  the  sound  with  that 
object,  no  settlement,  factory, 
or  other  establishment  whatso' 
ever^  had  been  founded  or  at- 
tempted, norhadanyjurisdic 


of  their  monarch,  and  had 
made  a  settlement  by  direct  arid 
Mneeial  nrrl^rt  nf  tlieir  ^nytrfi* 
men/,  before  any  attempt  for 
the  same  purpose  had  been 


tion  been  exercised  by  the    made  there  by  the  people  of 


any  other  nation."— '•'ifr. 
Greenkinii's  Strictures,"  pp.  3 
and  4. 


authorities  or  subjects  of  a 
civilized  nation  in  any  part 
of  America  bordering  upon 
the  Pacific,  between  Port  San 
Francisco,  near  the  .38th  de- 
gree of  north  latitude,  and 
Prince  William's  Sound,  near 
the  60th."— "Gre«iAo«>'s  His- 
tory of  Oregon,"  &c.,  p.  187. 

In  the  declaration  of  the  ?ovemment  of  Spain,  dated 
Aranjuez,  June  4,  1790,  the  Conde  de  Florida  Blanca  ad- 
mitted that  Spain  had  no  establishment*  or  coloniu  planted 
on  the  coasts  or  ports  in  dispute. 


2 


work  reippcting  the  northern  boundary  oi  Louidma  it 
"entirely  mla<|uotcd."    The  whole  |iai>Bgu  it  aa  I'ullowi: 

" refcrrinsf  to  the  atate  of  thinga  at  the  commi'nce- 

ment  of  thia  ceiilury"— "the  terriloriea  of  the  United  Mtatea 
wen;,  at  that  time,  all  included  between  the  Atlantic  on  the 
eaat.  and  the  Miaaiaaippi  on  the  weat.  In  the  north  were  the 
Britiah  pruvincea;  in  the  weat  lay  Florida,  helcmginK  to 
bpain:  and  tieyond  the  Miaaisaippi  tm;  Spuiiiurda  claimed  the 
vnat  region  railed  l.nniaiana.  alretchinK  from  the  (tuif  of 
Mexico  northward  and  nurlhweittward  lu  an  undeflned  ex- 
tent." 

Mr.  Falconer  hat  cited  the  Inat  linea  only,  in  otderto  con- 
trovert the  atalement  that  Louiiiiana  e«er  extended  ind>^li- 
nitely  to  the  mirth.  The  other  poitiona  of  the  pasjug:e  do 
not  <|ualify  oralt'ect  the  aMKcrtion  uf  the  extent  of  Lonibiana, 
•nd  were  therefore  omitted.  The  reaauiia  to  piove  that 
Loniaiana  did  not  extenil  indefinitely  to  the  north  are,— that 
no  authority  ia  cite<l  hy  .Mr.  (ireenhow  in  tiiippurt  of  his  as- 
iicrtion;  that  Louisiana  was  a  aubor'linntH  lii,  niid  partly 
formed  out  of,  the  province  of  Canitda;  that  according  to 
tlio  representation  of  Vaudreuil,who8urrendeted  ranada  to 
Qreat  Britain,  Loiiiaiana  did  nut  reach  further  to  the 
north  than  the  Illinois;  that  its  extent  was  a  dis- 
tinct lubject  of  negotiation  when  the  treaty  of  cession 
in  l*6j  wat  made;  and  that  in  1763,  all  to  the  north 
of  the  Illinois,  and  south  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  territory, 
formed  a  part  of  Canada.  When,  therefore,  the  treaty  of 
1763  fixed  Ihf  sourrf  of  the  .Mississippi  as  the  highest  point 
Of  the  diridint;  line  between  the  territories  of  (ireat 
Britain  and  F'rance,  east  and  west  of  it,  all  the  territory 
north  and  northwest  of  the  source  remained  a  portion  ol 
Canada.  M.  de  .Mofraa  states  that  the  olflcial  map  of  the 
French  government,  engraved  in  lT.'i7,  supports  this  state- 
ment; but  ,Mr.  Greenhow  appears  to  assert  that  this  map  re- 
lates to  the  negotiations  of  1 74.S.  The  dates  do  not  confirm 
this  view  of  the  case:  but,  setting  the  map  aside,  it  is  still 
evident  that,  as  Louisiana,  at  the  time  Canada  was  ceded, 
did  not  reach  further  north  than  the  Illinois,  it  could  not 
reach  further  north  than  the  source  of  the  Mississippi  after 
this  point  was  fixed  on  at  the  most  northern  point  of  Louisiana 
by  the  treaty  of  17(>i. 

6thly.  Mr.  F'alconer  remarks  that  it  is  not  honorable  for 
the  government  of  the  United  States  to  ur^je  measures  to 
populate  the  Oregon  territory,  in  order  to  enforce  itt 
claims  at  a  future  time.  To  this  Mr.  Greenhow  rejdies  that 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  in  1837,  "claimed  and  received 
the  aid  and  consideration  of  the  British  government  for 
their  energy  and  success  in  expelling  the  Americans  from 
the  Columbia  regions,  and  forming  settlements  there,  by 
means  of  which  ttiey  were  rapidly  converting  Oregon  into 
ft  British  colony."  But  this  is  no  reply.  Mr.  Greenhow  must 
be  porfectlv  satisfied  that  the  British  government  has  not 
entertained  the  wish  to  settle  the  dispute  by  the  agency  of 
•ny  forcible  or  hostile  operations  on  the  part  of  the  British 
papulation  in  Oregon.  Whatever  reasons  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  may  have  advanced  for  oDlcial  favor— and,  if  im- 
proper, they  are  surely  not  to  be  adopted  by  the  government 
of  the  United  States— they  have  not  interlered  with  that  re- 

Sard  for  public  rights  which  tlie  British  government  has  ex- 
ibitcd,  nut  whicli  Mr.  Greenhow  avers  ought  not  to  form 
a  portion  of  the  policy  of  the  American  government,  whose 
true  policy,  he  asserts,  ought  to  K-,  "by  all  lawful  means, 
to  resist  the  extension  of  Kuropean  dominion  in  Ameiicu, 
and  to  confine  its  limits  and  abridge  its  duration,  wherever  it 
may  actually  exist."— (Greenhow  on  the  Oregon,  p.  335,  n.) 
c:an  that  be  lawfully  abridged,  which  lawfully  belongs 
to  a  foreign  government'! 

The  above  are  all  the  facts  in  Mr.  Falconer's  argument, 
which  Mr.  Greenhow  comments  on.  He  says  there  are  in 
it  "mistakes,  misquutaliuun,  and  misrepresentations  of  all 
kinds;"  but  he  certainly  would  not  have  been  backward  in 
pointing  them  out,  if  they  were  to  be  found.  The  argument, 
he  admits,  would  he  "irrefragable,"  if  the  facts  were  cor- 
rect,—but  the  facts  are,  in  nearly  every  instance,  carefully 
■uttained  by  a  reference  to  Mr.  (Jreenhow's  own  work- 
Mr.  Falconer  himself  did  not  think  his  argument  was 
irrefragable.  He  thought  it  possible  that  he  had  overlook- 
ed iomething,  and  that  there  might  have  been  a  lair  re- 
ply made  to  it.  The  answer,  however,  of  Mr.  Greenhow 
nas  strengthened  his  belief  that  he  is  right;  for  Mr.  Green- 
how would  not  have  printed  so  feeble  a  denial,  if  the  really 
immaterial  matters  which  he  has  noticed  were  not  all  that 
he  could  find  fault  with,  or  attempt  to  answer. 

The  very  discourteous  and  intemperate  spirit  in  which 
Mr.  Greenhow  has  written  bis  reply,  can  only  be  injurious 
to  his  own  reputation. 

There  are  some  other  remarks  which  the  writer  reluc- 
tantly alludes  to,  on  account  of  their  personal  cbarccter. 
Mr.  Greenhow  states  that  the  more  taloable  portion  of  the 
doc  umentt  publwhed  by  Mr.  Falcener  on  the  oiKorery  «nd 


settlement  ot  Louisiana  "were  alnady  well  known  in  the 
United  States,  (see  Sparks's  Life  of  .M.  La  Salle,  and  While's 
'New  Recopilacion, )  and  that  »  number  still  greater  of 
more  interesting  papers  on  the  same  subject  lie  in  manu- 
script before  him."  Whatever  had  been  previously  iiuh- 
lished,  Mr.  Falconer  ha <  noticed,  and  hia  eatimation  of  the 
literary  aervici;s  of  Mr.  Sparks,  as  well  as  a  sense  of  justice, 
led  iiim  to  acknowledge  with  care  what  he  had  already 
done.  Whether  what  Mr.  F.  has  first  published  is  more  or 
less  valualle  than  what  had  previously  been  published, 
ho  will  not  contest;  but  he  must  sincerely  hopes  tiiat 
Mr.  (ireenhow,  whose  industry  will  enable  him  to  per- 
foim  the  labor  creditably, —who  will  find  no  willing  tritica 
to  condemn  him  in  its  performance.— will  publish  the 
interesting  documents  to  which  he  alluiles,  r  nd  give  to 
the  world  a  complete  and  consecutive  collectiin  of  the  me- 
moirs and  papers  of  the  adventurous  and  distinguished  men 
who  first  explori'd  the  western  territory  of  North  America- 
I'l  i.NKv,  .May  J8,  IH4.5. 

Observations  on  the  above,  by  Robert  Greenhow. 

Having  presented  Mr.  Falconer's  reply  to  my 
answer,  in  full,  I  shall  proceed,  without  further 
preface,  tf)  offer  some  remarks  upon  it,  agreeably  to 
the  order  in  which  he  has  examined  the  several 
points: 

1.  Mr.  Falconer,  in  his  book  on  the  Discovery  of 
the  Mississippi,  to  which  my  answer  applies,  and 
of  which  his  pamphlet  on  the  Oregon  question  is  in 
part  an  abridgment,  produced  a  quotation  from  the 
History  of  the  Federal  Government,  by  Alden 
Bradford,  of  Boston,  as  a  stipulation  in  the  trea- 
ty of  1603,  whereby  France  ceded  Louisiana  to 
the  United  States;  and  he  occupied  mttny  pages 
of  his  book  with  assertions  and  arguments  to 
prove  the  premeditated  bad  faith  and  treachery  of 
the  American  government,  upon  the  strength  of  this 
passage.  In  my  answer,  I  showed — what  every 
one  who  pretends  to  write  on  this  subject  should 
have  known — that  no  such  passage,  nor  any  like  it, 
existed  in  the  treaty;  and  I  ended  by  saying  that  it 
was  "most  charitable  to  suppose  that  he  never  saw 
the  treaty,  as  he  must  otherwise  &tand  amenable  to 
the  charge  of  having  falsely  brought  forward  the 
passage  forming  the  subject  of  these  remarks,  aa 
one  of  its  stipulations,  with  the  object  of  defaming 
the  American  government." 

Mr.  Falconer,  in  his  "postscript,"  does  not  seem 
willing  to  admit  that  he  never  saw  the  treaty.  He 
did,  indeed,  (as  he  says,)  refer  "to  the  passage  as 
part  of  the  terms  of  the  treaty,"  in  his  first  work; 
but,  in  his  pamphlet,  he  had  altered  the  %'ord  irssS^ 
into  agrtemetU,  in  order  not  to  be  misunderstood;  and, 
"though  the  citation  x$  not  in  iht  trtaty  itulf,  it  doe$ 
not  follow  th<U  it  is  not  part  uf  the  agreement  on  vihidt 
the  treaty  is  founded."  This  is  mere  quibbling, 
'''he  only  "agreetntnt"  known,  or  believed  by  any 
one,  to  have  been  made  between  the  United  States 
and  France,  relative  to  the  extent  of  Louisiana,  ia 
contained  in  the  first  article  of  the  treaty,  as  quoted 
by  Mr.  Falconer  in  his  book;  and  he  is  fully  as 
much  authorized  to  consider  Gulliver's  voyage  to 
Lilliput  as  part  of  that  agreement,  as  the  passage 
whidt  he  haa  been  pleased  to  repreaent  aa  audi.    "It 


j(Jy  well  known  In  the 
1  La  Salle,  »nd  White  • 
lumber  »till  greater  of 
ne  subject  lie  >n  manu- 
1  been  previouily  l>ub- 
III  his  eitimation  of  tbe 
,rll  R»  a  icnse  ol  justice, 
ewhnt  he  hnd  already 
si  imldished  is  more  or 
fiously   been  (."blished, 
St   siiicdrely  hopes  Inal 
vill  eimble    him  to  per- 
ill  find  iiu  willing  lT"'" 
unce.-will    publish  the 
he  alludes,  r 'id  (five  to 
tivecolleoti(.n«'f  the  me- 
usanddisliiisuifhedmen 
rilory  of  North  America. 


If  Robtrt  Grtmhow. 
ilconer's  reply  to  my 
ceed,  without  further 
B  upon  it,  agreeably  to 
examined  the  several 

ok  on  the  Discovery  of 
ly  answer  applies,  and 
e  Oregon  question  is  in 
d  a  quotation  (torn  the 
Jovernment,  by  Alden 
stipulation  in  the  trea- 
ice  ceded  Louisiana  to 

occupied  many  page* 
ons  and  argumenU  to 

faith  and  treachery  of 
jpon  the  strength  of  this 
1  showed— what  every 

on  this  subject  should 
passage,  nor  any  like  it, 

ended  by  saying  that  it 
ppose  that  he  never  saw 
irwise  stand  amenable  to 
ily  brought  forward  the 
ct  of  these  remarks,  aa 
h  the  object  of  defaming 

n 

)ost8cript,"  does  not  seem 
ver  saw  the  treaty.    He 
refer  "to  the  passage  as 
saty,"  in  his  first  work; 
ad  altered  the  word  trtsl'g 
to  be  misunderstood;  and, 
in  iht  treaty  Uuif, «  doM 
<jf  the  agrtemtnt  on  wMefc 
rhifl  is  mere   quibbling. 
9wn,  or  believed  by  any 
stween  the  United  States 
B  extent  of  Louisiana,  is 
le  of  the  tretUy,  as  quoted 
book;  and  he  is  fully  as 
der  aullivsr'B  voyage  to 
igrcement,  as  the  passage 
U>repie»entw»««h'   "** 


IS  thus  represented,"  he  says,  "by  Dr.  Bradford." 
This  is  i.ot  the  fact:  Bradford,  whose  work  is  now  be- 
fore me,  says  nothing  whatever  calculated  to  induce 
that  supposition;  and  if  he  hBd,amanprofe8Bing,like 
Mr.  Falconer,  to  enlighten  the  world  on  questions 
so  momentous,  should  have  consulted  the  treaty 
and  documents  relating  to  it  himself,  and  not  have 
depended  on  others,  as  others  again  may  de 
pend  on  him  for  its  contents.  Mr.  Falconer  ends  his 
paragraph  by  declaring  that  "Mr.  Qreenhow  does 
not  say  that  the  passage  is,  in  any  respect,  inac- 
curate." This  is  a  most  strange  assertion;  for,  in  my 
muwer,  which  must  have  been  before  him  at  the 
time,  I  pronounce  it  to  be  "merely  a  gratuitous,  and 
certainly  unfounded,  opinion  aa  to  the  limits  of  Lou- 
isiana." 

2.  On  the  rights  of  nations  to  occupy  vacant  ter- 
ritories, I  cannot  here  enter  into  an  argument. 
Many  pages  of  my  History  of  Oregon  are  devoted 
to  this  subject — parts  of  which  are  copied  by  Mr. 
Falconer  in  his  book,  with  judicioxa  alterations;  and 
other  parts  are  omitted,  to  suit  his  convenience.  I 
leave  him  to  reconcile  as  he  can  the  opinions  ex- 
pressed in  the  first  sentence  of  this  paragraph,  (No. 
2,)  on  the  subject  of  "taking  posieision,"  with  those 
on  the  same  subject,  in  the  last  sentence  but  one  of 
the  same  paragraph.  His  concluding  assertion, 
that  "such  (or  any  other)  possession  of  Oregon,  ac- 
companied by  occupation,  was  first  made  under  the 
authority  of  the  British  government,"  1  deny  in 
Mo.  The  coasts  of  Oregon  were  first  explored  by 
the  Spaniards,  who,  in  1774  and  1775,  landed  there 
in  many  places,  and  "took  possession"  for  their 
sovereign,  before  they  had  been  seen  by  the  people 

'-  of  any  other  civilized  nation;  and  the  first  settlement 
made  in  any  part  of  the  regions  now  knovtm  as  Or»- 
gon,  was  that  of  the  Spaniards  at  Nootka,  in  May, 
1769.  The  next  in  point  of  time  were  those  of  the 
Americans,  on  the  Columbia,  in  1809,  and  the  subse- 
quent years  to  1814.  The  earliest  British  settlements 
west  of  the  Rocky  mountains,  were  made  in  1806,  in 
the  region  north  of  Oregon.  The  "taking  possession" 
by  the  Spaniards,  and  afterwards  by  the  British,  was, 
as  I  have  termed  it  in  my  history,  "an  empty  pageant, 
securing  no  real  righf^s  to  those  by  whom,  or  in 
whose  names,  it  was  performed;"  but  the  priority 
in  this  point  belongs  to  the  Spaniards.  The  settle- 
ments at  Nootka  and  Astoria  were  meant  to  be  per- 
manent; they  did  not  prove  so,  any  more  than  those 
made  in  old  times,  at  Babylon,  Palmyra,  or  Thebes. 

3.  Here  I  have  only  to  leave  Mr.  Falconer  to 
reconcile,  as  he  can,  his  assertion,  that  the  British 
government  had  a  right  "to  instruct  Vancouver  to 
take  possession"  of  Oregon,  (which  the  British  gov- 
ernment, however,  did  not  do,)  with  the  terms  of 
the  convention  of  the  Escurial — which  was  binding 
«t  that  tins  on  both  Great  Britain  and  Spain. 


4.  I  did  complain  that  Mr.  Falconer  had  entirely 
misquoted  the  passage  in  my  history  relative  to  the 
northern  boundary  of  Louisiana;  and  1  do  now  com- 
plain that  he  has,  in  his  postscript,  left  it  to  be 
inferred  that  he  did  not  misquote  "the  lost  lines," 
of  which  he  now  speaks.  Those  last  lines  he  pre- 
sented between  quotation  marks,  in  words  totally 
diflTerent  from  mine;  and,  although  they  referred 
specially  to  the  condition  and  limits  of  Louisiana 
in  1600,  he  made  them  the  object  of  an  argument 
relative  to  the  condition  of  things  in  1763.  Under 
these  circumstances,  1  am  fully  authorized  to  sup. 
pose  that  the  variation  was  not  accidental,  and  that 
the  omission  was  made  with  an  object.  In  his 
postscript  he  has,  however,  acted  directly  and  evi- 
dently without  candor.  1  never  said  that  "Louisi- 
ana extended  indefinitely  northward,"  at  any  time. 
On  the  contrary,  I  have  proved  in  my  history  that 
it  was  bounded,  in  that  direction,  by  the  Hudson's 
Bay  territories.  I  showed  that  its  boundaries  on 
the  east  were  defined  by  the  treaty  of  1763;  and 
that,  on  the  north  and  northwest,  they  were  wniir- 
fined — that  is,  they  had  not  been  defined  by  any  agree- 
ment between  the  parties  interested. 

Mr.  Falconer  could  not  possibly  be  mistaken  aa 
to  the  difference  between  what  I  said,  and  what  he 
represents  me  as  having  said.  That  Louisiana  did 
not  extend  indefinitely  to  the  north,  no  reasons  were 
required  from  Mr.  Falconer  to  prove;  and  those  ad- 
duced by  him  are,  unfortunately,  all  either  irrelevant 
or  unfounded.  Louisiana  was  not  partly  formed  out 
of  the  province  of  Canada;  it  was  made  subordinate 
to  the  government  of  Canada  in  1712;  but  in  1717  it 
became  an  independent  government,  and  continued 
80  as  long  as  France  held  possession  of  it.  No  one 
ever  doubted  that  Louisiana  did  not  extend  further 
north  than  the  Illinois,  or  that  all  north  of  the  Illi- 
nois, and  south  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  territory, 
formed  part  of  Canada.  But  the  Illinois  lies  east  of 
the  Mississippi;  while  the  question  was  exclusively 
confined  by  me  to  the  regions  north  and  northwest  of 
that  river;  and  in  1762,  when  the  Mississippi  waa 
made  the  dividing  line  between  the  British  and 
French  possiessions,  "all  the  territory  north  and 
northwest  of  its  source  remained  a  portion  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  territories,"  as  it  had  been  ever  aines 
1669,  agreeably  to  many  treatiea  between  Franc* 
and  Qreat  Britain-  Mr.  Falconer  would  scarcely 
succeed  in  convincing  Sir  Henry  Felly,  or  Sir 
(Qeorge  Simpson,  or  any  other  member  of  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company,  that  the  territories  of  the  Red 
river,  the  Assinaboin,  the  Saskatehawine,  and  the 
Athabasca  had  ever  formed  part  of  Canada. 

With  regard  to  the  map  cited  by  Mr.  Falconer, 
on  the  authority  of  M.  de  Mofras,  as  proving  inoon- 
testably  that  Canada,  in  1757,  extended  to  the 
Pacific,  and  as  containing  tbe  course  of  a  river  in  all 


respects  identical  with  liie  Columbia,  and  which 
Mr.  Falconer  waa  pleased  to  regard  as  the  official 
map  employed  by  the  plenipotentiaries  of  France 
and  Great  Britain  in  1762,-1  showed   that  it  was 
drawn  and  presented  by  the  French  commissaries 
appointed  under  the  treaty  of  1748,  with  the  ob- 
ject of  exposing  the  extravagant  pretensions  of  the 
British  in  America;  and  that  it  contained  no  river 
entering  the  Pacific  from  the  interior  of  America 
near  the  46th  degree  of  latitude,  (as  expressly  as- 
serted by  M.  de  Mofras,)  nor  any  allusion  to  Cana- 
da, or  New  France,  nor  any    sign    whatever  of 
French  dominion  in  America;  while,  on  the  con- 
trary,   the  whole  division  of  the  continent,  from 
sea  to  sea,  between  the  40th  and  the  48lh  parallels 
of  latitude— including,  of  course,  nearly  all  Canada — 
appears  en   it  as  New  England.    My  assertions 
were  specific,  and  were  either  true  or  false.    Mr. 
Falconer  should  have  plainly  admitted  them  or  de- 
nied them;  but,  instead  of  this,  he  quibbles  again. 
"Mr.  Greenhow,"  he  says,  "appears  to  assert  that 
this  map  relates  to  the  negotiations  of  1748.    The 
dates  do  not  confirm  this  view  of  the  case,"  &c. 
Does  he  mean  that  the  map  specially  mentioned  by 
M.  de  Mofras  was  not  presented  by  the  French 
commissaries  appointed  under  the  treaty  of  1748? 
that  it  was  the  map  used  by  the  plenipotentiaries  in 
176i2?  that  it  does  contain  a  river  which  corresponds 
in  any  respect  with  the  Columbia?  and  that  it  tends 
to  prove  that  Canada  extended  to  the  Pacific? 

5.  Mr.  Falconer  declared  in  his  book,  that  "it  is 
not  honorable,  while  the  title  to  the  territory  is  unde- 
termined between  the  respective  governments,  to 
urge  measures  to  populate  it  with  American  citizens, 
in  order  to  give  facilities  for  its  occupation  at  a  fu- 
ture period."  On  this  point,  I  showed,  by  reference 
to  the  published  correspondence  between  the  Hud- 
son's Bay  Company  and  the  British  government, 
that  the  company,  in  1838,  "claimed  and  received 
the  aid  and  consideration  of  government  for  their 
energy  and  success  in  expelling  the  Americans  from 
the  Columbia  regions,  and  forming  settlements 
there,  by  means  of  which  they  were  rapidly  con- 
verting Oregon  into  a  British  colony."  This,  says 
Mr.  Falconer,  is  no reply;andhe  then  shifts  thisques- 
tion  to  one  about  the  settlement  of  the  dispute  by 
the  agency  of  forcible  and  hostile  operations. 
Whether  such  operations  have  been  authorized  by 
the  British  government,  we  know  not;  they  may  be 
ordered  and  carried  into  eflfect  in  virtue  of  a 
single  despatch  from  the  Colonial  Ofldce.  In  the 
United  States,  none  such  could  be  executed,  or  even 
ordered,  until  they  had  ^been  discussed  and  ap- 
proved in  Congress. 
Mr.  Falconer  has,  however,  most  positively  and 


improperly  misrepresented  my  views,  and  imputed 
to  me  dishonorable  motives,  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
same  paragraph.  I  assert  that  "the  true  policy  of  the 
American  government  should  be,  by  all  lawful 
means,  to  resist  the  extension  of  European  domin- 
ion in  America,  and  to  confine  its  limits  and  abridge 
iu  duration  wherever  it  may  actually  exist."  This, 
Mr.  Falconer  is  pleased  to  interpret  as  an  asser- 
tion that  "regard  for  public  rights  ought  not  to  form 
a  portion  of  the  policy  of  the  American  government;" 
and  he  asks,  in  conclusion:  "Can  that  bo  lawfully 
abridged,  which  lawfully  belongs  to  a  foreign  gov- 
ernment?" Has  Mr.  Falconer  not  heard  of  trea- 
ties, of  purchases  or  cessions  of  territories  in  ex- 
change for  other  advantages?  Are  these  not  lawful 
means  cfabridging  the  limits  and  the  duration  of  a 
dominion?  Finally,  may  not  a  nation  lawfully  re- 
sort to  war  for  such  purposes,  when  it  considers 
its  own  safety  threatened  by  its  neighbors? 

Mr.  Falconer  may,  with  perfect  safely,  represent 
my  answer  aa  feeble,  as  relating  to  immaierial  mailers, 
and  ds  displaying  a  diacourleous  and  inlemperale  spirU; 
whilst  he  well  knows  that  it  will  be  seen  by  very 
few  of  those  who  read  his  reply  to  it  in  England. 
The  terms  of  that  reply  have  doubtless  been  based 
on  this  consideration,  or  he  would  not  have  ven- 
tured to  misrepresent  my  statements,  as  he  has  here 
done,  in  every  particular.    If  he  is,  as  he  professes 
to  be,  strengthened  in  thebelief  of  the  correctness  of 
his  views  by  my  answer,  he  will  probably  not  have 
made  any  alterations  in  the  edition  of  his  pamphlet, 
to  which  this  postscript  is  annexed;  but  will  have 
sent  it  forth  to  the  world  with  the  quotation  from 
Bradford's  history  as  a  stipulation  in  the  Louisiana 
treaty;  with  the  charges  of  treachery  and  bad  faith 
against  the  United  States,  based  on  that  pretended 
stipulation;  and  with  the  assertion  that  the  map  pro- 
duced by  the  French  commissaries  in  1757,  shows  the 
course  of  the  Columbia,  and  proves  that  Canada  ex- 
tended to  the  Pacific:  in  return  for  which,  he  will 
doubtless  receive  the  approval  of  the  members  of  his 
government,  and  the  newspapers  of  London  will 
compliment  him  on  his  triumphant  vindication  of 
his  first  positions. 

While  such  liberties  are  taken  by  British  histo- 
rians, with  regard  to  subjects  on  which  accurate  in- 
formation may  be  so  easily  obtained,  and  errors  so 
easily  detected,  what  reliance  can  be  placed  in  their 
accounts  of  expeditions  to  AflTghanistan,  and  em- 
bassies to  Ethiopia,  where  they  may  represent  the 
circumstances  as  they  please,  without  fear  of  contra- 
diction? 

ROBERT  GREENHOW. 
Washington,  June  24, 1845. 


views,  and  imputed 
the  latter  part  of  the 
the  true  policy  of  the 
be,  by    all  lawful 
jf  European  domin- 
its  limits  and  abridge 
itually  exist."    This, 
itcrpret  as  an  asser- 
hts  ought  not  to  form 
nerican  government)" 
Can  that  be  lawfully 
igs  to  a  foreign  gov- 
sr  not  heard  of  irea- 
9  of  territories  in  ex- 
Are  these  not  lawful 
tnd  the  duration  of  a 
»  nation  lawfully  re- 
8,  when  it  considers 
s  neighbors'' 
rfect  safely,  represent 
;  lo  immaterial  mailers, 
I  and  intemperate  spirit; 
will  be  seen  by  very 
epiy  to  it  in  England, 
doubtless  been  based 
would  not  have  ven- 
cmenta,  as  he  has  here 
he  is,  as  he  professes 
Bf  of  the  correctness  of 
will  probably  not  have 
lition  of  his  pamphlet, 
mexed;  but  will  have 
ih  the  quotation  from 
Btion  in  the  Louisiana 
eachery  and  bad  faith 
ased  on  that  pretended 
rtion  that  the  map  pro- 
aries  in  1757,  shows  the 
proves  that  Canada  ex- 
turn  for  which,  he  will 
I  of  the  members  of  his 
lapers  of  London  will 
umphant  vindication  of 

taken  by  British  histo- 
on  which  accurate  in- 
Dbtained,  and  errors  lo 
i  can  be  placed  in  their 
AfTghanistan,  and  em- 
ihey  may  represent  the 
,  without  fear  of  contra- 

RT  GREENHOW. 

145. 


m^ 


IL 


a-, 


V  I 


W 

r. ', 


^ 


